JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has been preferred by the employer against the award passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner dated 07.12.2009. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased who was employed at the farm of the appellant to look after the dairy as well as cows, etc. did not fall within the definition of "Workman" as provided under Section 2(n) of the Act of 1923 and, therefore, under the provisions of the Act of 1923 the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants who are the legal representatives and dependants of the deceased. 3. I have considered the aforesaid submission and perused the award passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner. It is not in dispute that the deceased was employed at the farm of the appellant. It is also not disputed that the deceased was employed to look after the cows at the farm. Even as per the case of the appellant himself, there were more than 15-16 cows in the farm. 4. So far as the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as provided under Section 2(n) are concerned, it is provided under clause (ii) that Workman means any person who is employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing. Under the Schedule II inter-alia it is provided that persons employed in handling animals like horses, mules and bulls would come within the definition of "Workmen". Since, in the present case, the deceased was employed at the farm as a Dairy Hand, the deceased would come within the definition and purview of "Workman", as provided under the Act of 1923 in terms of Schedule II. 5. No other plea has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. The appeal as well as the stay application are accordingly dismissed summarily.Appeal dismissed. *******